Potentially monumental municipal election on tap

Amarillo is less than one month away from what looks like a potentially landmark municipal election.

Think of this for a moment.

Three members of the five-member City Council are not seeking new terms: Mayor Paul Harpole is retiring from public life; Place 2 Councilwoman Lisa Blake won’t seek election for the seat to which she was appointed in 2016; Place 3 Councilman Randy Burkett is forgoing a shot at a second term.

That leaves two council members, Elisha Demerson in Place 1 and Mark Nair in Place 4 seeking re-election to second terms. But get this: They both are facing serious challenges from serious challengers.

That means the entire council could flip on May 6.

Oh, and then there’s another element. The city has a new manager, a new chief administrator, Jared Miller, who was hired by the current council, but who might find himself working for five brand new council members with entirely different priorities.

Don’t get me wrong. The current City Council needed to act when it hired Miller and I applaud council members for moving with relative speed after dawdling for more than a year to find a permanent city manager after Jarrett Atkinson resigned shortly after the 2015 municipal election. They brought in an interim manager, Terry Childers, who right away seemed to be a poor fit, given some temperament issues that surfaced with that silly “Briefcasegate” matter involving his misplaced briefcase and that ridiculous 9-1-1 call in which he berated an emergency dispatcher. Oh, and then he called an Amarillo constituent a “stupid son of a b****”.

B’bye, Mr. Childers.

I’ve got my choices for the City Council. I frankly think a wholesale change in the council’s makeup is in order.

This election would seem to demand a huge turnout at the polls. It should compel a rigorous examination of the candidates and the platforms on which they are running. It should require voters to pay careful attention to each candidate’s views on the direction they want to lead the city.

Amarillo is in the midst of a massive makeover in its downtown district. We still have to get that baseball franchise relocated to Amarillo and to secure a major tenant for that ballpark officials hope to build across the street from City Hall.

I remain optimistic it will occur. The next City Council must ensure the city keeps moving forward.

At minimum we are guaranteed to elect a new majority on our council. A better outcome would be to start with a fresh approach across the board. My choices? Ginger Nelson for mayor; Elaine Hays for Place 1; Freda Powell for Place 2; Eddy Sauer for Place 3; Howard Smith for Place 4.

Are we ready?

Time for a town hall meeting, Rep. Thornberry? Hmmm?

Welcome home, Mac Thornberry.

I know you’re a big shot in the U.S. House of Representatives, chairing the House Armed Services Committee and all of that.

You and I have some shared history here in the Texas Panhandle. You took office the same week I reported for duty at the Amarillo Globe-News in January 1995. In a way, we kind of “grew up together.”

But you’ve disappointed me at times. We differ on public policy matters. That’s OK with me. We have maintained a friendly relationship, which I sincerely appreciate.

What I cannot yet fathom is why you are forgoing town hall meetings with your constituents during this Easter/Passover break Congress is taking. Surely you know about the unease among many Americans about what Congress might do with the Affordable Care Act, the law you GOP lawmakers and other critics blithely call “Obamacare.”

Y’all tried to scrap it and replace it with something else. It didn’t work. The effort failed.

But you aren’t planning any town hall meetings. You met with business leaders in Amarillo and, I presume, in Wichita Falls. I understand you talked about the government’s rules and regulations that affect business operations; I also am quite certain you heard a lot of agreement from those constituents over your own belief that the feds are too hard on private enterprise.

Others out there aren’t entirely in sync with what you want to do. They dislike efforts to repeal and replace the ACA. Indeed, many of your colleagues — including your fellow Republicans — have gotten a gutful of gripes from constituents. I applaud them for taking the heat.

I do not applaud members of Congress who decline to face their constituents and to answer their questions and deal with their anxiety.

You need not to be reminded, Mac, that you work for us. We are your bosses. Not the speaker. Not the House majority leader. Not the president. It’s us, sir.

Talk to us. Listen to us.

McMaster earns his, um, stripes as security adviser

H.R. McMaster wears three stars on his epaulets as a U.S. Army lieutenant general.

But he has earned some additional stripes as Donald Trump’s national security adviser in the wake of the Tomahawk missile strike ordered against Syrian military targets.

That’s the word from those who know these things.

I have to concur that after an initial major misstep in selecting another Army three-star — Michael Flynn — as national security adviser, the president has aligned himself with a serious pro in H.R. McMaster.

McMaster shows his clout

Gen. McMaster reportedly conducted serious meetings with senior National Security Council staff and lined up all the players on what should occur with regard to the strike.

I get that the results of the strike are being debate in its aftermath. It was seen as a “pin prick” against the Syrian military force. Its aim was to disable the base from which Syrians launched that terrible chemical weapon attack against civilians; the strike apparently didn’t do the job.

Still, one has to think the president chose well by securing McMaster as the man who provides critical national security advice to the commander in chief.

McMaster must face a daunting challenge, though, as he provides the president the advice he needs. He must be able to persuade the Big Man to think strategically, to ponder the consequences of his actions and to develop a thorough and comprehensive long-term plan to assert U.S. power when it’s deemed necessary.

Have at it, Gen. McMaster.

Happy Trails, Part Eight

I am happy to report that our first full-retirement excursion was an unqualified success.

We returned home after spending about 10 days on the road in our fifth wheel RV.

We spent the first part of it in the Hill Country of Texas visiting family members: my wife’s brother, two nieces, our “nephew in law,” and two great-nieces.

Then we headed west, toward Ruidoso, N.M.

But first we had some wind with which to contend. We pulled up in the Davis Mountains region, then trekked northwest toward El Paso and straight into some gale-force winds that kicked up a whole lot of dirt.

Our fuel mileage plummeted as we powered through El Paso and then headed north toward Ruidoso.

But we got there and spent a couple of nights at a campsite next to my sister and brother in law, who had driven in from their own vacation spot in Mesa, Ariz.

We had a serious blast with them. They departed and we stayed on to trudge along some mountain trails, which we did each day until our departure this morning.

Here’s the best news: Neither of us was particularly anxious for our journey to end. And this feeling, I venture to speculate, will accelerate as we move more deeply into this retirement life.

We came home, plan to do some laundry and then we’ll refocus on our next journey to, oh, hither and yon.

Enter the USS Carl Vinson

I heard the news of a Navy carrier battle group heading toward the Korean Peninsula and took special note of the aircraft carrier leading the group.

It’s the USS Carl Vinson, a Nimitz-class nuclear-powered beast with which I have some limited familiarity.

I don’t know, of course, what all this means overall. North Korean madman/dictator Kim Jong Un is rattling his sabre yet again. He’s launching missiles into the Sea of Japan and threatening war against South Korea, Japan and maybe even the United States.

So the Carl Vinson battle group is heading toward the peninsula in a show of strength.

I received a marvelous assignment in 1993 at the invitation of the late U.S. Rep. Charles Wilson, an East Texas Democrat who was a huge supporter of military affairs. I was editorial page editor of the Beaumont Enterprise at the time and our paper circulated deeply into Wilson’s 2nd Congressional District.

He invited me to join him on a tour of the Carl Vinson, which at the time was home-ported at San Diego, Calif. The ship was at sea at the time of Wilson’s invitation. I asked my editor if I could go; he said “yes.” The paper purchased my plane ticket and I flew to San Diego to meet with Wilson and his congressional party.

We landed on the Carl Vinson and spent three days and nights aboard ship. Rep. Wilson spent time talking to pilots, deck crew members, machinists, cooks. He told all of them how much he appreciated the work they did and the service they performed in defense of the nation.

By the way, you have not lived until you’ve been through a tailhook landing and a catapult launch off the deck of an aircraft carrier. Believe me, there is nothing in this entire world quite like either experience.

During a tour of the flight deck, the skipper of the ship at the time, Capt. John Payne, told us of the immense firepower contained on the ships comprising the battle group.

He then said something quite astonishing. He said the group — which comprised several warships, including cruisers, destroyers and frigates as well as support craft along with this monstrous carrier — contained more explosive firepower than all the ordnance dropped during World War II.

Of course, that prompted the question from yours truly: “Skipper, does that mean this ship is carrying nukes?” Capt. Payne looked me in the eye and said, “Now you know I can’t answer that question.”

OK. Got it.

Twenty-four years later, the USS Carl Vinson is still on active duty. It’s now heading for a potentially very dangerous zone. I do believe the ship and its massive crew will be ready for whatever occurs.

Time to think strategically, Mr. POTUS

Donald Trump needs to start crafting a strategic thought pattern as it regards Syria.

In a major hurry.

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations has declared that Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad’s presence in power eliminates any “political solution” to the crisis and the bloodshed. So, what does Nikki Haley recommend to remove Assad?

She isn’t saying, given that it’s not her call.

That decision needs to come from the president of United States. Moreover, it needs to be made with a complete understanding of what will happen if we manage to implement “regime change” in Syria.

This situation is getting more than a little scary. Sure, we launched some Tomahawk missiles at a military target in response to Syria’s use of chemical gas on civilians. The result of that strike is mixed … at best.

What is the next course of action? What is the president planning and what will be the consequence? Will he consult with Congress, which Republican leaders used to demand of President Obama whenever he sought to take military action against the Islamic State or al-Qaeda? For that matter, where are the demands for congressional approval now that Trump is president?

Do we go in with guns blazing?

Trump used to think it was in our national interest to stay out of Syria. Let the Russians handle ISIS, he once said. Let the Syrian government root out the terrorists, he added.

No more.

Now that we have entered the fight — even in this limited fashion — there needs to be some thought given to an “end game” if we choose to escalate this military intervention.

Think strategically, Mr. President, if you are able.

Still waiting for Russia to get ‘blame’ for Assad atrocities

Donald Trump is correct to label Syrian dictator Bashar al Assad a heartless criminal.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson also speaks wisely of the U.S. effort to rid the world of the Islamic State in Syria.

World leaders are applauding the president for launching the air strikes that hit military targets … even though the result of those strikes hasn’t dealt anything close to a crippling blow to Syria’s military capability.

I am waiting with bated breath for the president to hurl some angry public rhetoric at Assad’s benefactor, Russian President/goon Vladimir Putin. U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley at least has spoken about the Russian role in financing the Syrian government’s efforts to put down forces that have risen against the tyrannical Assad.

The president, however, needs to speak for the United States of America in condemning Russia’s complicity in the use of lethal gas by Assad’s forces against defenseless civilians. Dozens of people died in that horrifying attack, including several children. To witness the agony of those afflicted by the gas is to witness a major crime against humanity.

Assad must share most of the blame. But not all of it.

Russian military personnel have been actively engaged in this monstrous activity for years. They answer to Donald Trump’s pal Putin.

My patience is wearing out waiting for Trump to speak as forcefully about Vlad as he has about Assad.

One last hope for Justice Gorsuch

I am going to reveal my own bias — once again — but here goes anyway.

Neil Gorsuch is going to become the next U.S. Supreme Court justice on Monday. The U.S. Senate confirmed him in a mostly partisan vote.

Donald Trump promised to select a conservative justice for the court and he delivered on his promise.

Fine. Trump is the president and he has the right to select anyone he wants.

Gorsuch’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee was filled with the usual stuff that court nominees say, which is they cannot comment on issues that might come before the court. His reticence satisfied Senate Republicans and frustrated Senate Democrats.

He did, though, suggest that Roe v. Wade — the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion — essentially is “settled law.” He also said the president never asked him if he’d vote to overturn the ruling, adding that had Trump done so, that he (Gorsuch) would “have walked out of the room.”

My hope for the new justice is that he becomes more of an independent thinker than his critics believe he’ll be. There’s plenty of precedent on the Supreme Court for justices becoming something other than the presidents who appoint them had hoped.

President Eisenhower selected Chief Justice Earl Warren and William Brennan, both of whom became liberal stalwarts on the court; President Nixon selected Justice Harry Blackmun, who then wrote the Roe opinion in January 1973; President Ford selected Justice John Paul Stevens, who then joined the liberal ranks on the high court; President George W. Bush selected Chief Justice John Roberts, who then voted to preserve the Affordable Care Act.

No one should seek to predict how the new justice will comport himself on the court. Some, though, have done so. I am not nearly learned enough in matters of law to make such a prediction.

I do have my hope … and my bias that drives it.

Masters exerts ‘prior restraint’?

The third round of the Masters Tournament is about to end and I want to comment on something that has stuck in my craw for the past several years.

CBS Sports has been broadcasting this professional golf “major” for as long as I can remember. Some years back, CBS hired a smart aleck announcer named Gary McCord to broadcast golf on the network.

McCord played on the PGA tour. He didn’t win any tournaments. But he fancies himself as a comedian. I don’t find him funny.

Neither do the snotty souls who belong to Augusta (Ga.) National Golf Club, where they play the Masters every year.

What did these ultra-rich guys do some years back? They ordered CBS to pull McCord off its broadcast team for the Masters.

Why did this stick in my craw? It kind of smacks of a form of “prior restraint,” with an exclusive, private country club dictating to a major media outlet how it can do its job.

This brings to mind a question I wish I would have asked the corporate owner of the Amarillo Globe-News, where I worked for nearly 18 years until Aug. 31, 2012. William Morris III is chairman of Morris Communications, which owns the G-N. It is based in Augusta, Ga. Morris is a member of Augusta National, an outfit filled with members who are “invited” to join; one doesn’t apply for membership, mind you. The blue-noses at the country club have to ask you to join.

As near as I can tell, the predominant qualifier for membership has something to do with the size of one’s bank account.

The question I wish I would have asked Billy Morris? Why do you people at Augusta National take yourselves so damn seriously?

Cool the jail talk, Rep. Waters

Maxine Waters must still be angry over that tasteless joke about the “James Brown wig.”

The California Democratic U.S. representatives then popped off on her own, saying that Bill O’Reilly “needs to go to jail” over allegations that he sexually harassed several women.

Whoa! Let’s hold on here.

O’Reilly made a stupidly insensitive “joke” about Waters’ appearance, making some reference to her hairstyle as resembling the late singer James Brown’s hair.

He later apologized for the crass remark. OK. Fine.

Then came a flood of accusations from women contending that O’Reilly sexually harassed them. We’ve heard of settlements from O’Reilly and from Fox News to the women. From where I sit, a “settlement” implies a bit of fire under all that smoke.

Should the bombastic blowhard — O’Reilly — go to “jail” because of what he might have done? I don’t think so.

Do not misconstrue this as anything approaching an endorsement of O’Reilly. It isn’t. I cannot stand the sound of his voice, let alone the content that pours out of his mouth. He very well may deserve to be banished from TV airwaves. Fox execs aren’t likely to do a thing about it as long as O’Reilly’s loyal viewers keep watching him.

Rep. Waters, though, ought to show a bit of discretion when talking about this matter. Mentioning a jail term, instead, reveals a good bit of hysteria.